Recent content by Moes

TIL skydiving is not scary.

Let’s say when she is wakened someone threatens to kill her unless she can guess the way the coin landed. What would her credence on heads be now?Let’s say we flip two coins and unless they both land tails she is only awakened once. But if both coins land tails she is awakened a thousand times...

For some reason people think of a pair as a kind of set where you need one of each instead of two of the same items. It’s interesting. But I actually don’t think their mistake is with the math.

I also thought this method should work and I like figuring out what was wrong with the way I was thinking, so I went through it. I’m not sure why you got confused, but you were actually correct. The third tile would have a 1 in 30 chance of matching the first tile but also a 1 in 30 chance of...

Yes, this is exactly what I’m trying to do, but I’m not going to make believe I understand something when I don’t. I think I actually do understand your argument about credence, but simply disagree with it. Others in this thread seem to have a different argument for why they believe the answer...

Yes, this is a simple example where the probability is obviously 2/3. This was never questionable. This would be like a random person walking into a room where he knows the sleeping beauty experiment is taking place, but doesn’t have any other information. If he sees sleeping beauty awake he...

Sorry if this is what it sounded like I was saying, its not at all what I was trying to say. I agree. My opinion is, like others already explained in this thread, that there is basically no impact that MWI has on those reasonable pragmatic answers.

You are getting into many philosophical questions, many which we already are confused about. It’s not even clear whether your two scenarios are at all philosophically different. If there are two identical versions of you are there two of you or one? I don’t think it makes any more sense to...

You are missing the point of the anthropic principle. We don’t need the anthropic principle to tell us that it is valid to form conditional probabilities. That is obvious. The point of the anthropic principle is to explain fine tuning. I don’t see how your explaining how we just happened to be...

The same way you understand that in the discussions of fine tuning the condition “intelligence“ can be added to figure out the probability of us living in a universe with our laws of physics, likewise in the sleeping beauty problem when figuring out the probability of her being awake given that...

Using the anthropic principle as I was saying it comes out there is a 100% chance that she would be awake whether the coin landed heads or tails. So how do you think this condition of being awake could make tails more probable than heads?

Sorry I meant it would say that whether the coin landed heads or tails P(awake)=1 The results of the simulation are obvious.

The anthropic principle is exactly what I think confirmes my claim. It would say that whether the coin landed heads or tails P(heads|awake)=1 [Edit: P(awake)=1] so neither is more probable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Bias_(book)#Self-sampling_assumption...

Ok, one way I think I could explain it, is that you can only let your belief depend on the conditions if the conditions could have been different. In this case she could not have been thinking about the probabilities when she was sleeping. So the condition that she is awake can not be used to...

I don’t think I should keep arguing anymore but even if I do I would like if you can just tell me to stop when you don’t think we are getting anywhere. I would like this thread to remain open so others can later give there opinions.